I need to have this quantitative paper proofread and edited so it flows logically. I would also like for the overview to be written.
Proposal 31 THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TITLE PAGE: THE TITLE SHOULD GO HERE (ALL CAPS) by Student’s Full Legal Name L University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education L University Year ABSTRACT Today's teachers are expected to have a constantly expanding knowledge base and skills that support working within a multi-tiered system of supports, including Response to Intervention (MTSS/RTI). Since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 and subsequent regulations that allowed school districts to use alternate processes for determining learning disabilities, the implementation of Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks in preschool- to 12th grade (PK-12) schools has steadily increased. However, most teachers lack the necessary skills and training to be successful in implementation. The existing teacher corps is the focus of current field-based professional development initiatives. Most Pk-12 schools, however, now require an entering teacher corps that has gained this knowledge and skills during their teacher preparation program. According to a tenet of multi-tiered systems of support and response to intervention, the lack of response to instructional intervention is explained by classroom experiences and behaviors given opportunities to learn (MTSS-RTI). This review investigates the use of Eco behavioral observation to inform steps that could be taken for children who aren't responding to elementary school to middle school literacy instruction in order to fill this information gap in MTSS-RTI decision making process. Keywords: Mtss, rti , pbis, language and literacy, instruction, child academic engagement Copyright Page (Optional) Dedication (Optional) The dedication page is a page in which the candidate dedicates the manuscript. This page is optional. Acknowledgments (Optional) The acknowledgments page provides the opportunity for the candidate to acknowledge individuals who influenced the writing and completion of the dissertation. This page is optional. Table of Contents ABSTRACT3 Copyright Page (Optional)4 Dedication (Optional)5 Acknowledgments (Optional)6 List of Tables10 List of Figures11 List of Abbreviations12 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION13 Overview13 Background13 Problem Statement14 Purpose Statement14 Significance of the Study14 Research Question(s)15 Definitions16 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW17 Overview17 Conceptual or Theoretical Framework17 Related Literature18 Summary18 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS19 Overview19 Design19 Research Question(s)19 Hypothesis(es)20 Participants and Setting21 Instrumentation22 Procedures23 Data Analysis23 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS25 Overview25 Research Question(s)25 Null Hypothesis(es)25 Descriptive Statistics25 Results26 Hypothesis(es)26 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS27 Overview27 Discussion27 Implications27 Limitations27 Recommendations for Future Research28 REFERENCES29 APPENDIX or APPENDICES30 List of Tables The List of Tables cites the tables and the corresponding pages of each table. This enables the reader to easily locate the tables in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double spaced. List of Figures The List of Figures cites the figures and the corresponding pages of each figure. This enables the reader to easily locate the figures in the manuscript. The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double-spaced. List of Abbreviations The title of this page should be a Level 1 heading, centered, 1 inch from the top of the page. Entries should be double-spaced. Examples are provided below. Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview Start Chapter One with a brief, introductory statement (one short paragraph). This should orient the reader to the contents of the chapter. Include no citations. Background A recommendation was made following the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 to use Response to Intervention (RTI). A research-based, tiered system of academic and social assistance that provides academic or social intervention based on the unique area(s) of need of a student is known as Response to Intervention (RTI). This approach provides educators with the capacity to work and identify these pupils early on, allowing them to close the gap between benchmarks and current accomplishment before it expands and becomes more difficult to close. Teachers' perceived levels of stress vary from day to day and according to Von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus, Wicoff, and Bowler (2017), and may result in the use of more frequent counterproductive teaching practices; however, despite these stressors, teachers are still held accountable for their students' academic growth. When academic or behavioral benchmarks show that a student is not performing at their highest level of learning (at/above benchmark), teachers must seek out innovative instructional strategies with the primary goal of closing the achievement gap, all while balancing their other job-related duties and responsibilities (Satterfield, 2020). If general-ed teachers are unable to assist students in closing these academic gaps, the end result is all too frequently referral in other special education programs. Since the 1960s, members of the educational community have disputed educational choices for challenging kids, as well as concerns about the rapidly expanding number of pupils enrolled in special education programs (Jahnukainen and Itkonen, 2015). As part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), RTI was authorized to be used indefinitely, and a multi-tiered support system was instituted as a means of securing additional assistance for all students, reducing the number of special education student referrals, and lowering the overall costs of special education services (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). The implementation of the RTI framework, according to Cowan and Maxwell (2015), resulted in a paradigm change in the educational system since it obliged educators to investigate alternative interventions, tactics, and approaches before recommending testing or attempting to diagnose a kid. The RTI framework was originally intended to be used as a strategy tool to aid in the early identification of students with learning disabilities. It was also intended to be used as a screening process to prevent over-identification of students as needing special education services as a result of an incorrect diagnosis or label being assigned to a particular student (Satterfield, 2020). Historical Overview Researchers and educators have witnessed considerable gains in student outcomes as a result of the passage of federal special education legislation. The legislation was devised and implemented in order to ensure that all pupils, regardless of aptitude, have unfettered access to a free and suitable public education. Learning impairments, behavioral consulting, data-driven program adjustment, and other sectors are all examples of where the RTI framework has its roots (Bergan, 1977; Deno & Mirkin, 1977). It was 1982 that the idea of a multi-tiered method in the general education classroom was first proposed, but it wasn't until more than a decade later that the idea of employing a multi-tiered approach in general education classrooms was revived at the federal level (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). RTI has been influenced by a variety of sources, including parent groups and educational psychology (Preston et al., 2016), but Heller, Holtzman, and Messick (1982) were among the first researchers to conceptualize the origins of RTI in their theory that general education teachers are ultimately responsible for providing multiple interventions to struggling students and documenting student progress within these interventions (Preston et al., 2016). According to Heller et al. (1982), general education teachers must follow the established protocols before referring a student to special education in order to reduce the overidentification of pupils for special education. According to Heller et al., "the measure of a child's potential is not his or her initial performance, but the degree of progress made in response to instruction" (p. 62). When it comes to special education, the tiered intervention approach has its roots in the preventive models used by the social and health services administration (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000). Kauffman (1999) proposed one of the first recognized direct uses of three levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) in the context of special education interventions to target emotional and behavioral disorders (Zigmond, 2011). RTI has been around for quite some time, but it wasn't recognized as a formal program until President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, which mandated that educators incorporate scientifically based research in their instruction and intervention strategies (Thorius & Sullivan, 2013; Voulgarides, Fergus, & Thorius, 2017). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) brought about significant and sweeping changes in the United States' educational system, and it increased pressure on general education teachers to emphasize the importance of providing high-quality, research-based instruction and interventions to all of their students (Klotz & Canter, 2007). It also established the practice of holding schools and teachers formally accountable for the progress their students make on a yearly basis through the use of mandated standardized assessments, and it mandated that special education students not only have access to the general education curriculum but also participate in all standardized assessments, as well as participate in all standardized assessments (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). As part of the NCLB accountability movement, control was transferred from local school districts to the state level for schools that did not improve their performance criteria. The present tiered RTI model, as a result, has been described by researchers as a development of special education away from a civil rights frame and toward a frame of educational excellence and accountability (Itkonen, 2009; Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). Schools may utilize a process that assesses if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process (614[6]B) when identifying students with learning disabilities when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in 2004 (614[6]B). This reauthorization, which allowed states to use RTI for both prevention and identification of learning disabilities, was prompted by growing concerns that the IQ-achievement discrepancy-based model that had previously been used had devolved into a "wait and see" model (Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015; Kovaleski, 2007; Reschly, 2005; Voulgarides et al., 2017, Zigmond, 2011). In many cases, kids had to fall so far behind their peers and "fail" before they could receive any assistance or interventions, and for many of them, the academic gap had grown so great by that point that it was nearly difficult to close the gap. As a result of the discrepancy model's lack of inclusion of evidence-based interventions and instructional response, it was frequently difficult for teachers to distinguish between students who were struggling because they did not respond to interventions and students who were still struggling because they had not received adequate instruction in the classroom (Vellutino et al., 1996; Voulgarides et al., 2017). Supporters of RTI believed that the use of a multi-tiered response model would allow teachers to better determine which students have a true disability and which students simply have not received evidence-based instruction. In many cases, kids had to fall so far behind their peers and "fail" before they could receive any assistance or interventions, and for many of them, the academic gap had grown so great by that point that it was nearly difficult to close it. As a result of the discrepancy model's lack of inclusion of evidence-based interventions and instructional response, it was frequently difficult